Step 19: Rocket designs

Step 20: Thank you for Reading

If you have any problems please leave a comment

This Instructable will show you the how to build and fly water rockets. Featuring two stage rockets and drop away boosters, and also some basics.
This instructable is based on my knowledge of water rockets, that I have learn in the past few years.

I am not responsible for any damage you infict on your self or others from launching or building water rockets

Step 1: Lets get Started

A water rocket is propelled by pressurised air forcing water down though a nozzle. This creates thrust.

If you took a standard two litre fizzy soft drink bottle and pressurised it to120 psi the rocket would reach about 100 or so feet.

But then if you took 2, two litres bottles and pressurised it to 120 psi again the rocket would go about 150 feet or so because the rocket has more air in it therefore creating more thrust. The rocket will only go 50 feet more because of the added mass. You can stop this by making a two stage rocket. A two stage rocket will work better because it would not have to carry the full payload on all of its flight.

Step 2: How to build a fins and nose cones

In the next few steps you will be shown how to build the basic needs of a bottle rocket.
This step is to get to grips on what a rocket needs.

Step 1: nose cone

cut the top and bottom off a 1.25 litre bottle. Then cut the neck off the top.

Step 3: Step 2: Nose cone

Step 2:

Cut a ping pong ball in half with a craft knife,
Then glue half of the ping pong ball into the top of the 1.25 litre bottle 'top'.

Use a Plastic adhesive glue, Or if apperance doesn't matter you could just tape it on!

Step 4: Step 3: Nosecone

Glue or tape the nose cone to the top of the rocket.

Adding wieght to the nose cone may help, It will move the centre of gravity higher, thus being more stable.

do you actually own the copyright to these diagrams, i highly doubt you have gone through what is needed to have the copyright for them and putting that little "copyright OscarThompson" in your pictures doesn't actually do anything

I think they are referring to the fact that he may have placed an illegitimate copyright tag on his work. Doing so without first acquiring a legal copyright is illegal in the US, I believe. Yes, he may own some or all of the ideas/photos, but he is not automatically awarded a copyright or patent. I'm no expert but I think US law provides that he must first go through the process with an official agency (US Patent Office) to determine if this work is not only his own, but that it is copyright-worthy (or patent-worthy). The comments above are questioning the fact that he acquired an official copyright with such an insignificant amount of work.

I just looked into this further, and I was wrong on the point of automatic awarding of a copyright. According to Copyright.gov "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." However, I after reading more of this article, I believe people are confusing Copyrights with Patents. It depends on what he is trying to protect, as Copyright does not cover ideas, facts, systems, or methods of operation. If he wants these protected he will need to look into getting a patent or some other type of protection. The big deal here is that he's claiming a copyright on material that he is intending to be public. Which is just making him look like a jerk.

I know you have heard this same thing many times before, but I'm sending you this message because I feel you can do better than this!

Whenever, someone puts “Copyright[insert name/date here]” embedded in a photo or creation, that person is really doing nothing more than alienating their audience. I fully understand why you have done this. However, I feel in doing so you have tainted your otherwise-good tutorial.

To put it plainly, viewers just don’t care where your ideas came from or who the first to think of it was. As long as the tutorial contains enough clear and quality information to complete the project, and the viewer is not offended by such content, they will usually give positive feedback. What you have done here is inadvertently offended/alienated the viewer by using a copyright stamp, they are most likely offended because the use of a copyright stamp usually denotes the expectation of payment due to its common use in industry to prevent copy without consent. Let’s be honest, nobody likes to pay for things, so as soon as somebody sees this they will probably lose 50% of their interest in the project (especially when browsing a free-for-use content site like Instructables.com).

Another factor playing into this is the assumption/doubt that this is a legate copyright. If you have indeed gone through all procedures to acquire such a copyright, I’m sorry to break it to you, but you are wasting your time! These allegedly copyrighted ideas/illustrations are easily replicated without a copyright stamp by simply placing a white square over the affected part using common software such as MS paint. Although illegal, this is how many works are stolen and claimed by others to be their “original work”. If these copyrights are false or you do not rightfully own the content covered, you are probably in violation of patent law. Either way, all you have done is turned off your audience from any further business with you, the author due to your choice to exhibit a copyright.

Yes, in a perfect world, everyone would/should acknowledge all the sources from which they have pulled. In reality this just not practical. First off, nobody is going to be able to recognize each and every individual who may have contributed or had a similar idea. This is because on almost every simple project (such as those on Instructables), nobody knows where all the ideas came from. For example, Leonardo da Vinci is commonly credited with inventing the parachute. Although this was never entirely his idea, he may have put his own spin on it, creating his version, known in the history books. This was most likely done by compiling numerous other concepts, created by others, most of which even he wouldn’t know the origins of. He may have even incorporated concepts that he was familiarized with during childhood by his mentors, years before he first thought of the invention. It is this type of idea-building that has driven millenniums of technological progress.

Bottom line is, unless your idea is a complex piece of highly-developed, never-before-seen technology, and is at-risk of being copied (for profit) by another party, copyrighting it is a waste of time and is frowned upon by your audience. You have presented these ideas on a website known for offering free-to-use tutorials/content, in addition to the fact that you have blatantly told anyone and everyone how to build your device. These facts show that you are intending for your project to be free-for-use/public domain. And therefore should never have been copyrighted.

The part that disappoints me the most is that you have used ideas from another site (no credit given to Air command Rockets) and all the while expected us to give you credit for your ideas. Note that Air Command’s boosters also function by being “held on by the upthrust of the bottles” (step 14), (see http://www.aircommandrockets.com/howitworks_1.htm#DropAwayBoostersfor comparison). It would have been fine for this site had you left it at something like “I have created boosters that fall away after the trust is depleted…”. But you just had to dig yourself a trench by saying “These drop away boosters are different to Air Commands.” (step 14) “Professional” indeed!

oscarthompson- My suggestion for you is to:

Remove the false copyrights if they are illegitimate

Revamp this Instructable to include citations where necessary, OR re-word it as not to claim ownership of any questionable-owned ideas.

Try to be more considerate of you audience in future postings by not attempting to copyright things that are to be posted as free.

Stop trying to be a company, you are a man with ideas, not some business trying to make a quick buck!

As for anyone thinking that copying ideas and claiming them for their own is okay:

Copyrights are in place to protect those who have worked hardest on their intellectual property. An example of a clear violation of this would be somebody copying an entire Instructables, such as this one, editing out the author’s name, and re-posting the ideas represented as under their own name. Even though this is not copyrighted, it is still not your property, and illegally copying it as “your work” is considered plagiarism (which can also be illegal). A good rule of thumb is to go with your gut-feeling, if you don’t truly feel/know it belongs to you, then don’t use it, or at least don’t take credit for it as a ”completely new idea”. Even better would be to hunt down the work, from which you originally got the ideas, and properly cite them. This shows your audience that you value their interest and encourage them to find out more about your project. One last point to consider, is to not try to label a work as private property, when it is supporting content intended to be freely used by others, on a regular basis. That’s not a law, it’s just polite.

except that you are wrong. think of the difference between throwing a cottonball and throwing a marble the same size. there is the same air resistance on each, but the marble goes further because it has more inertia and is better at penetrating the air because it is heavier. now think of an arrow. there is weight on the tip, so that it flies straight because there is more drag and less weight at the back (feathers and no metal tip). there is a reason airplanes are more stable when nose-heavy than tail heavy. i think you are confused because the thrust is coming out the back and you think that weight in the nose will make it try to point lower and wobble around. but remember, the thrust will only spin the rocket around if it has a loose nozzle that will try to keep going the same way while the rocket spins. i see why you were confused though. your idea would work great in a vacuum with gravity but no air (like the moon) so there would be no drag, but not in atmospheric conditions.

who cares if he has a copyright?!?!? this is a great instructable that i used to spend a few hours with my daughter AND an instructional speech for my speech class. but the instructions you put on here were clear and easy to read. and i researched the launcher online for several hours and i believe this to be the best one.

i used the 2 bottle design and i used gorilla glue (which is stronger than hot glue). the thing reached 15 to 20 feet in the air and the reason for this failure was my choice of glue. the glue expanded like it is designed to BUT this glue is not a good adhesive for the plastic in the bottles.

i can see the potential if i just follow instructions (this was a problem for me growing up). i always think i can improve the process, but once again i am wrong. but my daughter had an awesome time, i had a great time, and we got the whole family together for the launch so the project was still an overall success. i will be building bigger and better in the near future.

I used to make make water rockets when I was a kid. All I ever used was a 2 liter bottle, duct tape, and the valve stem from a tire. Drill a hole just slightly smaller than the valve stem in the plastic lid and jam the sucker through it as far as you can, wrap the bottle with duct tape (just one layer is fine) - this is a "better safe than sorry kinda thing" - never had one blow up. Fill the bottle about 1/5 of the way with water, use a hand pump or air compressor to add about 45 psi, turn upside down and unscrew the lid. Mine usually went above 100 feet easy, of course I used a bit more pressure. ;)